See, we're offshoring as fast as we can and when we can't do that we bring in more H1-Bs. Hell, I'm starting to see them in non-technical fields like entry level business analysis.

The real solution is protectionism and an end to the H1-B visa program so you don't need a 4 year degree to do something that can be learned in an afternoon. As long as companies use that degree qualification as a quick and easy way to get H1-Bs for free you'll have kid's drowning themselves in debt out of desperation.

then somebody else can pocket it. Either for their own pet project or as tax cuts.

but saving up for a down payment on house is already impossible in my neck of the woods. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

There's a ton of basic science getting done for that $150 mil you're ignoring. I don't even get too made at the F-35s. At the end of the day it's all just socialism. Military Spending is about the only way we lower castes have ever managed to pry money away from the 1% (not counting a few minor victories with Unions that really only happened thanks to the Cold War).

Eisenhower talked about it in his memoirs. He and a bunch of progressives created the Military Industrial Complex as a way of redistributing wealth. It was the only way he could keep the US Economy going instead of grinding to a halt when the 1% took everything for themselves. As I recall he was guilty over it and thought the harm done was worse than the help, but the only folks I know doing OK right now have gov't jobs that either are or depend on the Military...

Secret struggle...

Thanks a hell of a lot. Now it's no longer a secret!

It is hard to "strip off" the naval stuff.
You can remove the tail hook, but the stuff they do to the airframe to make it strong enough to keep the tail from coming apart under that abuse would require a large redesign.
The landing gear are likewise stronger than a "normal" aircraft, and would require redesign.

From the below, 120 miles of range, lower ordnance load, and, unless the L was half price, a higher acquisition cost. Operational costs are probably higher, spares are probably more, fuel cost are probably higher( greater range, two engines to feed, more weight ( more fuel, navalized parts, etc ).
Not a great value for non-Naval airforces.

( numbers from wikipedia )
F-16,
cost: 19 m
range: 340 mi
payload: 17,000lbs
speed: mach 2

F-18,
cost: 29 m
range: 460 mi
payload:13,700 lbs
speed: mach 1.8

"Just look at North Korea, how they are still standing! DPRK wouldn't be around today lest for those 7-9 primitive nukes they hold."

There was a day before they had nukes. What protected them then?
I submit that being nestled right next to China is far more protection.

"Look at what happened to Libya and Iraq, which failed to obtain nukes and the amero-zionist cabal violently dismantled them"

Libya fell apart without much real help from us.
Iraq was invaded on the premise that they had or were attempting to obtain nukes and other WMD.

The A-10 is designed to fly low and slow and kill enemy tanks.
It will face enemy rifle, machine gun and anti-aircraft cannon far more than enemy air to air or ground to air missiles.
A successor would be successful in terms of making the aircraft harder to target by a/a or g/a missiles.

The F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter. That is the F-22's role.
The F-35 is an attack aircraft, basically a jack of all trades.
It can bomb, it can fight, but it isn't the best at either.

For all of me, we should:
Keep the A-10, upgrade it
Develop a Harrier successor for the Marines
Have kept the F-14, upgrading it ( the F-18 is similar to the F-35, an attack aircraft, not a great air superiority fighter )
Focused the role of the F-22

Basically, since McNamara, we keep trying to reduce costs by combining roles.
Most aircraft that have undergone this have suffered.
It is important to keep an eye on costs, but making cost the primary driver leads to failure.

But keep in mind, most aircraft go thru a teething period. Some fail, but not all.

To be fair, the F-18 is a naval aircraft and has features that are irrelevant to most customers.
Dont assume I am a big F-18 fan from this...

WWII Japan was committed to actual yucky warfare.
WWII Germany was committed to actual yucky warfare.
Neither were squeamish about it.

The honest version of the answer to that would be very short. "We lost."

OK, what is the full story?

Great idea except:
    If it is a drone,
        A, the enemy will attempt to jam your communications to it
        B, the enemy might figure out how to co-opt your communications and use it against you.
        C, the enemy will go after the ( concentrated, probably ) command and control center where your drone pilots are.

    If it is AI are we good enough at all the parts? ,
        A. identifying friend and foe?
        B, being able to strategically and tactically manage the aircraft
        C, coordinate with other friendlies?

"If you want safe VTOL, just put a second engine on the Harrier."

Then you would have all the costs and issues of making the power transfer work, with an airframe that would have to be redesigned to accommodate the second engine, and no other benefits. It isnt as easy as you make it sound.